Re: __cplusplus_concepts ?
Greg Herlihy wrote:
On Mar 20, 10:03 am, p...@versatilecoding.com (Pete Becker) wrote:
Alberto Ganesh Barbati wrote:
Just a question: how many compilers define __cplusplus as 199711L yet
they don't implement the export keyword? As you can see, this mechanism
already failed in the past... It's not such a solid argument.
It's not an argument at all. It's a simple statement: a compiler that
does not conform to the C++ standard should not define the macro
__cplusplus.
No, it's not a simple statement - it's a statement that is simply
wrong: "...Non-conforming compilers should use a [__cplusplus] value
with at most five decimal digits."
Fine. Testing for a value that's >= 199711L will always fail with such a
definition.
Every C++ compiler (conforming or not) must define __cplusplus
No, the operative word in the footnote (footnotes are not normative) you
cite (without mentioning that it's a footnote) is "should", which is a
recommendation, not a requirement.
Yes, tautologically, a fully conforming C++ compiler must, as part of
conforming to the standard, define __cplusplus. But the subject here is
non-conforming compilers, so the requirements of the standard do not apply.
--
-- Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com)
Author of "The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and
Reference." (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]